Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, but afferent vision does require the light to be received by the brain through signals.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And that happens. Light hits the retina resulting in signals being sent to the brain. This is established fact.
|
I believe that is true because blind people can see patterns from impulses being relayed by the optic nerve, but this doesn't mean we're dealing with true vision; the kind of vision that allows us to actually see normally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes, it has all of the frequencies which presents all the information required for a dated image, but it also has all the frequencies which presents all the information required for an instant image such that when we take a picture of something, it is within range and therefore resolvable.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If that were true then vision could be both real-time and afferent, as all the information required is already there at the eye such that no further 'looking out' would be required.
|
All the information is there at the eye, that is true, but the eye can't see itself. It must use the light's wavelengths by means of the cones and rods to see the real world --- that's out there --- not in the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It traveled, but by the time the camera snaps a photograph, the light is already at the film. So travel time has nothing to do with it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It doesn't follow yet that travel time has nothing to do with it. Now that you've admitted your previous error, the next question is whether or not that light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed.
|
At one time light had to travel to the object, but once the light is here, it's always here. I'll say this again: If you can see an object through a lens, the light is already present so when you take a photograph it's a photograph in real time, not delayed time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Never mind. I want to end this part of the discussion.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course you do. You have no interest in investigating efferent vision properly to find out if it is really a coherent possibility. You're terrified that you might find out that it isn't.
|
That's not true. This thread was intended for his first discovery until it got hijacked again. I also said more empirical studies will determine, once and for all, who is right, but the testing has to be reliable and replicable.